Environmentalists pursue Japan's whalers

[wagyl]

I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...

You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.

[Yokohammer]

I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...

You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.

Ah ... right ... the fragments of conversation that I actually took in are falling into place now. Thanks.

[Salty]

I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...

You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.

Nope - gerrymander is not transfer of an economic value. But are you trying to say that because some other place stinks, vote buying doesn`t? Your logic is a bit smelly.

[wagyl]

Before I spend time crafting a considered response, please tell me: Was that post after sake or not?

[Salty]

Before I spend time crafting a considered response, please tell me: Was that post after sake or not?

Before I give a considered response, please tell me if your less than thoughtful attribution of your own thoughts on gerrymandering – were before, or after your own piss about?

[wagyl]

OK, I'm game.

The adjustment of electoral boundaries, which while still lying within the limits of what is constitutional, are designed to favour one political party over another.

I give you one guess. Which am I referring to? A gerrymander, or the urban-rural vote value imbalance in Japan?

Bonus question: do either of them involve the transfer of economic value?

And most importantly: show your reasons.


I have no patience for people who avoid questions about the meanings of their posts by claiming that they had been drinking.

[Salty]

OK, I'm game.

The adjustment of electoral boundaries, which while still lying within the limits of what is constitutional, are designed to favour one political party over another.

I give you one guess. Which am I referring to? A gerrymander, or the urban-rural vote value imbalance in Japan?

Bonus question: do either of them involve the transfer of economic value?

And most importantly: show your reasons.


I have no patience for people who avoid questions about the meanings of their posts by claiming that they had been drinking.

OK – so no, I had not been drinking when I posted…

Nope - gerrymander is not transfer of an economic value. But are you trying to say that because some other place stinks, vote buying doesn`t? Your logic is a bit smelly.

Now on to this post…

I do know what gerrymandering is. Gerrymandering does not occur in japan – since district boundaries are fixed. (You knew that, right?) Please do note, that I had not mentioned gerrymandering until you – out of thin air, suggested that I equated it with vote buying. That was a complete fabrication on your part. Were you drunk, or is it your normal modus operandi to attribute shit to others?

Gerrymandering, to the best of my knowledge does not involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter. Neither does intentional maintenance of vote disparities. Clear?

I have been clear about the meaning of my posts – please do try to keep up.

[wagyl]

OK, does vote buying involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter?

(Not to get distracted by the fact that electoral redistributions do in fact happen in Japan -- you knew that, right?)
And I have never claimed to have been drinking to avoid questions about my posts here. And I think my last drink was early October, so I think I have sobered up.

I know the conversations on here are really fast paced and it is hard to keep up, but I ask you to try. I brought up gerrymanders in a post which quoted Matsuki, and in direct reference to his comment deprecating Japanese democracy, to illustrate that the democracy in the United States may not be perfect either. it is a running gag with Matsuki, him criticising Japan by pointing out issues it has, all the while the United States having equivalent issues. I think the two of us almost expect the conversation to go that path every single time.

[Salty]

OK, does vote buying involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter?

While you have omitted providing responses to my several questions, I`ll bite... that is pretty much the definition of vote buying. Gold star for you.

[wagyl]

So vote buying must involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter, and the intentional maintenance of voter disparities does not involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter.

Therefore, the intentional maintenance of voter disparities is not vote buying.

You can perhaps understand the difficulty in understanding what you have said earlier with

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

And perhaps even more when the original statement which started this all off had absolutely no mention of vote value imbalance. I quote it in full:

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.

Even if we were all expected to have a crystal ball and understand that that post was all about vote imbalance (which we have established is not vote buying) we are left with the concept that support for whaling is vote buying, even though we have also established that all major parties support whaling, and indeed you yourself say

I have never said that the parties differed (so far) in what they say about fisheries.

which does confuse me still in the light of

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.

If it is possible at all for you to clear that up........

I can see that you have a beef with electoral vote value imbalance. That is probably a legitimate beef. But it still has nothing at all to do with whaling, since all the parties have the same position on whaling. And it also has nothing to do with vote buying. So I do wonder what you have been trying to say.

In fact, I go so far as to dispute

I have been clear about the meaning of my posts

I am not the only one who sought clarification from you.

[matsuki]

I brought up gerrymanders in a post which quoted Matsuki, and in direct reference to his comment deprecating Japanese democracy, to illustrate that the democracy in the United States may not be perfect either. it is a running gag with Matsuki, him criticising Japan by pointing out issues it has, all the while the United States having equivalent issues. I think the two of us almost expect the conversation to go that path every single time.

Sorry to chime in but just wanted to say I have plenty of similar criticisms of the US system...though they do not excuse what goes on here. (or protection of failing endeavors like butter production)

[Samurai_Jerk]

I had not mentioned gerrymandering until you – out of thin air, suggested that I equated it with vote buying.

I'm the one who initially suggested it though not as directly. Since you said that voter suppression and vote value manipulation were buying votes it would be easy to categorize gerrymandering as the same.

I brought up gerrymanders in a post which quoted Matsuki, and in direct reference to his comment deprecating Japanese democracy, to illustrate that the democracy in the United States may not be perfect either. it is a running gag with Matsuki, him criticising Japan by pointing out issues it has, all the while the United States having equivalent issues. I think the two of us almost expect the conversation to go that path every single time.

Sorry to chime in but just wanted to say I have plenty of similar criticisms of the US system...though they do not excuse what goes on here. (or protection of failing endeavors like butter production)

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

[Salty]

So vote buying must involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter, and the intentional maintenance of voter disparities does not involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter.

Therefore, the intentional maintenance of voter disparities is not vote buying.

You can perhaps understand the difficulty in understanding what you have said earlier with

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

And perhaps even more when the original statement which started this all off had absolutely no mention of vote value imbalance. I quote it in full:

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.

Even if we were all expected to have a crystal ball and understand that that post was all about vote imbalance (which we have established is not vote buying) we are left with the concept that support for whaling is vote buying, even though we have also established that all major parties support whaling, and indeed you yourself say

I have never said that the parties differed (so far) in what they say about fisheries.

which does confuse me still in the light of

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.

If it is possible at all for you to clear that up........

I can see that you have a beef with electoral vote value imbalance. That is probably a legitimate beef. But it still has nothing at all to do with whaling, since all the parties have the same position on whaling. And it also has nothing to do with vote buying. So I do wonder what you have been trying to say.

In fact, I go so far as to dispute

I have been clear about the meaning of my posts

I am not the only one who sought clarification from you.

Please! Did you not see where I clarified that I wrote that `run-on` sentence? Please do grow up.

IMO - the managed and maintained vote value disparity is the largest threat to Japan`s democracy. Greater than the vote buying, including that of support for whaling. Fix the vote value disparity and all things are possible.

The new ruling coalition may indeed support whaling, and maybe not as it fights to correct the bastardization of the economy that the LDP has created.

[wagyl]

Greater than the vote buying, including that of support for whaling.

So whaling is vote buying again? Or is this a run on sentence?

Tangentially, in my view, the biggest threat to Japanese democracy is the campaigning restrictions, where political debate is reduced to broadcasting the name of the candidate and asking for support. If they can't tell the voters what they stand for, how can the voters make a choice?

I like your support of a political party which makes a promise to continue whaling only as a tool in the hopes that it can get a majority and then change the electoral system, and then once those means have achieved those ends, becomes anti-whaling. If anything is "vote buying" AKA obtaining votes, it is bait-and-switch policies! Boy is your gas station attendant going to be angry!

I think I can see where our difference is. I do not believe that ending political support for whaling will automatically remove vote disparity, nor do I believe that removing vote disparity will automatically end political support for whaling. You seem to have a vain hope that at least one of those is possible. In any event, you can perhaps understand why your sudden mention of one political party raised my question.

I think you can also understand my confusion in a thread about whaling where you, in effect, suddenly shout "Fuck LDP!" and nothing more, when in fact other political parties have the same policy. And when I ask about the whaling policies of other parties, you start talking about completely separate grievances you have with the party. As you say, you never did say anything about the policies on fisheries by the other parties differing.

I get it that you have a thing for the LDP. You mentioned them gratuitously before in the My Number thread, which was why my ears pricked up this time too. But however much the LDP gives you a hard-on, it is always going to be unrequited. They will never give you a reach around, and you will just end up with blue balls.

[matsuki]

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.

Anyhow, do you not find this aspect of Japanese governance...uniquely terrible?

Since 1947, the Prime Minister of Japan has been chosen in the "designation election of the prime minister" (naikaku sōridaijin shimei senkyo, 内閣総理大臣指名選挙) in the National Diet. It is held when the cabinet resigns or the post of prime minister has fallen vacant; a cabinet must resign en masse under the constitution in the first Diet session after a general election of the House of Representatives, if a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives is not answered by the dissolution of the chamber or if the prime minister is incapacitated, e.g. by death, illness, kidnapping or defection. Though both Houses of the Diet vote in two-round elections to select a prime minister, the House of Representatives has the decisive vote: If the two Houses vote for different candidates (as they did in 1948, 1989, 1998, 2007 and 2008), a procedure in the joint committee of both houses (ryōin kyōkaigi) may reach a consensus; but eventually the candidate of the House of Representatives becomes that of the whole Diet and thereby prime minister-designate. The designated prime minister must still be ceremonially appointed by the Emperor in the Imperial Investiture (shinninshiki) to enter office; but unlike some heads of state, the Emperor has no reserve power to appoint anyone other than the person elected by the Diet.

In 2001, LDP president and prime minister Jun'ichirō Koizumi instituted an advisory council to investigate the possibility of introducing direct popular election of the prime minister in a constitutional revision

[wagyl]

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.

Anyhow, do you not find this aspect of Japanese governance...uniquely terrible?

Since 1947, the Prime Minister of Japan has been chosen in the "designation election of the prime minister" (naikaku sōridaijin shimei senkyo, 内閣総理大臣指名選挙) in the National Diet. It is held when the cabinet resigns or the post of prime minister has fallen vacant; a cabinet must resign en masse under the constitution in the first Diet session after a general election of the House of Representatives, if a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives is not answered by the dissolution of the chamber or if the prime minister is incapacitated, e.g. by death, illness, kidnapping or defection. Though both Houses of the Diet vote in two-round elections to select a prime minister, the House of Representatives has the decisive vote: If the two Houses vote for different candidates (as they did in 1948, 1989, 1998, 2007 and 2008), a procedure in the joint committee of both houses (ryōin kyōkaigi) may reach a consensus; but eventually the candidate of the House of Representatives becomes that of the whole Diet and thereby prime minister-designate. The designated prime minister must still be ceremonially appointed by the Emperor in the Imperial Investiture (shinninshiki) to enter office; but unlike some heads of state, the Emperor has no reserve power to appoint anyone other than the person elected by the Diet.

In 2001, LDP president and prime minister Jun'ichirō Koizumi instituted an advisory council to investigate the possibility of introducing direct popular election of the prime minister in a constitutional revision

No. Not unique at all. Look at the Westminster System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... _countries Perhaps Japan is a little different in that the Upper House does have some say in the selection of Prime Minister, but I don't think that is a material difference in what you are talking about.

I'm not sure it is so terrible a situation either. Less ongoing disputes between the legislature and the executive over supply/allocation of budget, and no televised debates involving Donald Trump over endless years of expensive campaigning. The Electoral College is not direct election either (continuing our "US does it wrong too" theme. Thanks for leaving that in for me!)

[Wage Slave]

What exactly do you think is terrible? Or unique for that matter?

And, Who wrote the stupid constitution anyway?

[Samurai_Jerk]

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.

It's not what we're reading into it, it's what you're writing. You regularly unnecessarily qualify statements to emphasize Japan or Japanese people and use anecdotal evidence to draw very broad conclusions about Japan. Then you backtrack once you get called out on it. We can't read your mind. If you don't write what you actually mean, you can't expect us to follow your thinking. I don't buy most of your backtracking though. I think you're writing exactly what you think and then realize how ridiculous it sounds and try to wiggle your way out of it.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Salty, for the record your problem isn't run-on sentences.

[matsuki]

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.

It's not what we're reading into it, it's what you're writing.

Where did I write anything like "unlike the US?"

No. Not unique at all. Look at the Westminster System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... _countries Perhaps Japan is a little different in that the Upper House does have some say in the selection of Prime Minister, but I don't think that is a material difference in what you are talking about.

I'm not sure it is so terrible a situation either. Less ongoing disputes between the legislature and the executive over supply/allocation of budget, and no televised debates involving Donald Trump over endless years of expensive campaigning. The Electoral College is not direct election either (continuing our "US does it wrong too" theme. Thanks for leaving that in for me!)

...and they all have the inspiring track records like this?



18 resignations.....7 in the past 10 years

[wagyl]

The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.

I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.

It's not what we're reading into it, it's what you're writing.

Where did I write anything like "unlike the US?"

Why did you go to the effort of typing the word "Japanese" before the word "democracy" then, if not to indicate that Japan is a special case?

No. Not unique at all. Look at the Westminster System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... _countries Perhaps Japan is a little different in that the Upper House does have some say in the selection of Prime Minister, but I don't think that is a material difference in what you are talking about.

I'm not sure it is so terrible a situation either. Less ongoing disputes between the legislature and the executive over supply/allocation of budget, and no televised debates involving Donald Trump over endless years of expensive campaigning. The Electoral College is not direct election either (continuing our "US does it wrong too" theme. Thanks for leaving that in for me!)

...and they all have the inspiring track records like this?



18 resignations.....7 in the past 10 years

Really? All those 30 other countries (i.e., roughly 15% of national governments on the planet) with prime ministers chosen by parliament and cabinet executives have a revolving door leadership? Do you really think that Japan will suddenly get stable leadership if there are direct leader elections? Maybe you want 8 years of Ishihara, I'm not so sure myself. And since when is long living leadership a sign of a healthy government system?

Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.

[Wage Slave]

Ah, I see. What's unique and terrible is the Prime Minister changing every year or so.

Yes, but is that a consequence of the constitution itself or a consequence of how the elected representatives and political parties have behaved? Perhaps Japan would have been better off with a directly elected president/head of state, separation of powers between the executive and assemblies and all that jazz. However, personally, I get the feeling that the political culture here, at least in recent years, would bend any constitutional framework to their many narrow partisan ends and in the process produce an unstable mess.

[wagyl]

The fact that these leaders get dumped actually shows that there are checks and balances and a good mix of power between the legislature and the executive, despite the political science theory that there is insufficient separation of powers with this system. Imagine wanting to get rid of Mori (now new and improved with idol style shaved head), but having to wait the remaining three years of his term before you can ditch him, or else having to try and do a show trial involving "DNA" (because we are too uptight to say "cum") stained dresses in an effort to impeach him.

[matsuki]

Why did you go to the effort of typing the word "Japanese" before the word "democracy" then, if not to indicate that Japan is a special case?

I do think Japan is a special case. I'm just pointing out that I'm not trying to make the case that the US is much better. They are both uniquely terrible.

Really? All those 30 other countries (i.e., roughly 15% of national governments on the planet) with prime ministers chosen by parliament and cabinet executives have a revolving door leadership? Do you really think that Japan will suddenly get stable leadership if there are direct leader elections? Maybe you want 8 years of Ishihara, I'm not so sure myself. And since when is long living leadership a sign of a healthy government system?

Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.

How many of those countries are really fair to compare with Japan? (Don't say Zimbabwe, General Butt Naked may care to differ)

Out of those, do any of them have the same musical chairs situation going on with the PM? Do those PMs resign over anything and everything? Is "when shit gets tough or you lose popularity, assume no risk or responsibility, take no action, just bow the fuck out" the right message to send to the populace?

However, personally, I get the feeling that the political culture here, at least in recent years, would bend any constitutional framework to their many narrow partisan ends and in the process produce an unstable mess.

Pretty much THIS

[wagyl]

Why did you go to the effort of typing the word "Japanese" before the word "democracy" then, if not to indicate that Japan is a special case?

I do think Japan is a special case. I'm just pointing out that I'm not trying to make the case that the US is much better. They are both uniquely terrible.

Really? All those 30 other countries (i.e., roughly 15% of national governments on the planet) with prime ministers chosen by parliament and cabinet executives have a revolving door leadership? Do you really think that Japan will suddenly get stable leadership if there are direct leader elections? Maybe you want 8 years of Ishihara, I'm not so sure myself. And since when is long living leadership a sign of a healthy government system?

Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.

How many of those countries are really fair to compare with Japan? (Don't say Zimbabwe, General Butt Naked may care to differ)

Out of those, do any of them have the same musical chairs situation going on with the PM? Do those PMs resign over anything and everything? Is "when shit gets tough or you lose popularity, assume no risk or responsibility, take no action, just bow the fuck out" the right message to send to the populace?

Zimbabwe is not a Westminster style government, so I think it is out of contention. It does, however, have remarkable presidential stability.

My point was that the Westminster system does not necessarily lead to musical chair prime ministers, whereas you were suggesting that it was what was causing it. First, a change in leader is not always a bad thing. Even if you think it is a bad thing, I would suggest that there were problems not related to the method of choosing the executive, which are the root issue of the many and varied PMs. Perhaps Americans are most familiar with Canada (I fear that they might not be, and they should be: look how fucking long that land border is, and there isn't even a fence!!) Spotty timeline, but largely stable. I am no expert on Canadian parliamentary history, but I would hazard a guess that a few of those short term guys were midterm changes who then tested their popularity at polls, and failed. Is the United Kingdom really fair to compare with Japan? Look at that shock in the 1920's, but you don't hear it being said that they are out of control with instability. Can New Zealand stand shoulder to shoulder with Japan in parliamentary stature? Maybe not, wikipedia does not grace them with a graph. Australia? Fucken oath no! No graph, and two periods of five PMs in five years, in the late 60's and just now. And in most cases, they couldn't have got rid of the bastards soon enough.

I think you can probably say that in addition to that list, the parliamentary systems of Singapore, India, Ireland, Israel, amongst others, are sufficiently free from the scent of rum wafting in with the tropical breeze to stand up as a fair comparison standard with Japan.

And for balance, lets look at a presidential example. I present for your entertainment, Repubblica Italiana. If only I could get gelato in so many flavours.

[matsuki]

Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.

How many of those countries are really fair to compare with Japan? (Don't say Zimbabwe, General Butt Naked may care to differ)

Zimbabwe is not a Westminster style government, so I think it is out of contention. It does, however, have remarkable presidential stability.

Yeah, but does he have his own movie of cannibalism, murder, and child sacrifice...nude?

And for balance, lets look at a presidential example. I present for your entertainment, Repubblica Italiana. If only I could get gelato in so many flavours.

Ok Wags, in your words, what is wrong with the J-gov?

[wagyl]

Ok Wags, in your words, what is wrong with the J-gov?

In my view, the biggest issue, and what causes the changes of leadership, are the constantly reforming and realigning factions within whichever party or coalition happens to be in power at any one time. Dietmembers seem to be perfectly happy to realign themselves behind a different faction leader at each reshuffle, which seems to happen at each minor crisis. The major motivator is not what their constituents want or even what their constituents voted them in to do, but instead whatever is expedient for their political career. That last factor is common to the political animal everywhere, though. I think. The faction system is not a force of good for democracy, in my view. Possibly because of the limitations on campaigning I mentioned above (My name! My name! Yoroshiku onegai itashimasu!) and also for cultural reasons, there is less tendency to call politicians to account about whether they are actually keeping the bargains they made to get elected.

I know that it goes against democracy to deny a particular class an entitlement to become dietmembers, but the tendency for political dynasties here does tempt me to wish that they would stop relatives of members becoming members themselves. Then again, a few people in the US probably have a similar wish in relation to their own political system.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Matsuki, General Butt Naked is from Liberia.

[Salty]

Salty, for the record your problem isn't run-on sentences.

OK -thanks. Maybe just mumbled logic, or run-on thoughts.

[Salty]

Greater than the vote buying, including that of support for whaling.

So whaling is vote buying again? Or is this a run on sentence?

Tangentially, in my view, the biggest threat to Japanese democracy is the campaigning restrictions, where political debate is reduced to broadcasting the name of the candidate and asking for support. If they can't tell the voters what they stand for, how can the voters make a choice?

I like your support of a political party which makes a promise to continue whaling only as a tool in the hopes that it can get a majority and then change the electoral system, and then once those means have achieved those ends, becomes anti-whaling. If anything is "vote buying" AKA obtaining votes, it is bait-and-switch policies! Boy is your gas station attendant going to be angry!

I think I can see where our difference is. I do not believe that ending political support for whaling will automatically remove vote disparity, nor do I believe that removing vote disparity will automatically end political support for whaling. You seem to have a vain hope that at least one of those is possible. In any event, you can perhaps understand why your sudden mention of one political party raised my question.

I think you can also understand my confusion in a thread about whaling where you, in effect, suddenly shout "Fuck LDP!" and nothing more, when in fact other political parties have the same policy. And when I ask about the whaling policies of other parties, you start talking about completely separate grievances you have with the party. As you say, you never did say anything about the policies on fisheries by the other parties differing.

I get it that you have a thing for the LDP. You mentioned them gratuitously before in the My Number thread, which was why my ears pricked up this time too. But however much the LDP gives you a hard-on, it is always going to be unrequited. They will never give you a reach around, and you will just end up with blue balls.

Please do say that you have finally had that drink... since the alternative is that you are a serial abuser of what people write - infusing your own twisted interpretations and suppositions.

You did not initially ask if the parties differed in their stance toward whaling - but rather if the parties had different policies. Please don`t add lying to your tool chest.